On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Gilboa Davara <gilb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 08:58 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > > Gilboa Davara wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 20:04 +0200, Raz wrote: > > > > > > > Do not use inline kernel atomic_t operation, you will violate GPL. > > > > Use gcc builtins. If you want information please refer to: > > > > > http://sos-linux.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/sos-linux/offsched/Linux-Debug/ > > > > and download linux-debug.pdf . You will few words on atomicity in > user > > > > space in linux. > > > > Please execuse for bad editing, the paper is not complete. > > > > > > > > raz > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > While I was aware of the derived problem - I neglected to point it out. > > > Thanks. > > > > > > At least in my case (and partially due to the derived work problem), I > > > simply wrote my own set of assembly functions that worked the same > under > > > both Linux/BSD and Windows (under both user mode and kernel mode). > > > > > > - Gilboa > > > > > I might be missing something really basic, but may I ask "why"? What > > would you want to achieve that would require you to use the "get and > > set" (or "test and set", or whatever) in user space? > > > > Shachar > > Why? > - Write code that can run more-or-less the same as kernel module and as > a user-space library. (And under multiple different OS') > - Implement fast spinlocks and/or RW locks in user mode. (Again, that > behave the same under kernel mode and user mode.) > Giloboa why not take a look at urcu for fast locks.http://www.lttng.org/?q=node/18 I talked to the guy i saw the presentation at the LPC. > - Atomic counters. > - Anything else that can use the "lock" prefix. > > - Gilboa > > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-il mailing list > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il >
_______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
